Worlds, Rankings, Competitions and so on...

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 22 Jul 2004 21:31

i do not want rankings of any sort. i love the non competitive atmosphere of the footbag community. BUT, i have been thinking about this "Top 100 players" thread and got to wondering, how could we rank them. one suggestion was award 10 points to the guy who wins a comp, 5 points to second place, etc., etc. which got me thinking a bit more. first off, this is all theoretical, number values mean pretty much nothing, this is just where my mind meandered. well...

well, if there was going to be a competition circut and rankings and so on and so forth, to make it work you have to base events on the following...
-the number of registered players at an event
-the strength of the players
-the strength/ prestige of the event.
it's not practical to say 10 points for first, 5 for second, etc., etc. because every comp is different, right?

right. so this means that you can't go to the yellowknife footbag comp, the arctic circle shred symposium, the iqaluit championships and, the nairobi national footbag challenge, win all of them and be ranked first in the world. for starters, there would not be alot of other competitiors at the events, the strength of the other competitors (if any) probably wouldn't be that high, and the more or less unknown event wouldn't draw alot of attention. so...

so, you would have to give value to an event based on the number of people that attend an event. this just makes normal sense. you shouldn't recieve the same amount of points for winning a comp with 5 people competing as you would recieve for winning todexon or an event of that size. you would have to award value to the number of players attending an event. so if you wanted to make it 1 point per person, then that works. so if you have 20 people atthe comp you are attending, the comp is now worth 20 points.

you would have to award "strength" to each player. this means grading them first. now many people i'm sure are saying "look you stupid tit, that's what this whole thread is about!". well this would just be preliminary rankings, because the rankings would likely change shortly after the system was set in place and the season started. after the system was used for a full season (using worlds as the end of the season) the rankings would have sorted them self out.
we would use the results from worlds as a starting point, using the results from shred and routine separately in 2 different ranking lists (since some only compete in one, but an over all list could be easily compiled) and would award the top 5 with A cards, the following 10 with B cards, the following 20 with C cards, etc, etc. The value of an A card would be worth 10 points, the value of a B card would be 8 points, a C card would be worth 5, etc, etc. players who are not carded, such as new players and first time competitors, add no extra value to a competitions worth. so if you have 2 A's, 5 B's, 4 C's and 9 uncarded players in your comp, it would get another 72 points (A20+B40+C20+U0), now being worth a total of 100 points.

with regards to the cards and how to obtain them, there are a few ways to do this.
one way, and probably the most practical, would be that only the top 5 places would be A's, the next 10 B's, the next 20 C's (and so on and so on). so if you were fourth in the rankings, placed poorly in a comp and your rank dropped to 6th, your value at your next competition would be only a B card value.
another way to do it would be that you would retain your card for a whole season, with a re-evaluation and a re-distribution of the cards at the end/beginning of the season, using the final results from the year befor as your data to select your card holders for the upcoming season. the main flaw with this would be retirees, walking off with A's and B's and taking away the high value these cards retain. and having to retabulate the Card holders every year would be a serious migrane. since you know the rankings, you know the cardings, which makes it easier than just having some guy show up at your comp who is ranked way low, hasn't played at all since worlds but was awarded a B card based on his result from the end of the last season.

now the system, i think, would work on it's own as is, but if it was desiered, certain competitions could be given extra value, like Worlds, CSS, FootJam, Todexon, Euros, Chilly Philly, etc. could be given World Cup or Grand Prix or something status. this would mean since it's a prestigeous event it would be worth more, or a precentage of it's value (marked using the system above) would be added to it's original total. possibly have different percentages for different events. worlds taking riority, would be doubled it's original value, world cups given 50% bonus and prestidgeous events 20%. think golf. you have the open championships, the US open, the masters, the pga championships as well as all the other professional competitions. it would also improve attendance at these events, as you get alot of the C and D cards comming out trying to snatch up the extra points and work their way up the ladder. so lets say the comp you are attending is considered part of the footbag tripple crown and it is given an extra 20% on top of it's tabulated competition score of 100. 20% of 100 is 20, so 120 points would be awarded to the winnner, say 110 to second, 100 to third, 80 for 4-8, 50 for 9-16, etc., etc.

the events that recieved bonuses would be selected by a comitttee. perhaps they would rotate venues every year, or maybe they would stay the same. that would be up to the comittee as well.

now this theoretical competition is worth 120 points, but of course not all of them would be. a chart would easily regulate the distribution of the points to the players. so competitions falling in the 100-109 point category would follow point distribution scheme X awarding the players who placed with with their respective amounts, and 110-119 point ones would fall in scheme y awarding the players who placed their respective amounts, and so on, and so on. another possibility would be to round down (we don't want to just give points away)the total to the closest multipul of 10. so a comp worth 122 would fall into the 120 point scheme.

now, you'll note that this system only ranks competitive players, and still doesn't rank those monks in the himalayahs who have blended mind, body and soul and can do back to back quintuple dexes like they are infinities. so basically i fall short of ranking the best in the world, but manage to rank the best competitors in the world. not every one likes competition... too bad.

Stoke · Post by **Stoke** » 22 Jul 2004 21:55

Oh yea- you mean like the footbag net players' seeding?

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 22 Jul 2004 22:07

yeah basically. thanks for the link. i didn't know they had that type of system, as i don't really follow net.

thinking alittle bit more about the rankings...
now, no one ever says the guy who won the competition is the guy who won shred 30, that person is usually usually the guy who wins routine. so whith that in mind i thought perhaps for the over all standings a combination of the two competition types would be used, but with shred 30 points being valued at 50% (or some thing) while routine points would be at full value.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 23 Jul 2004 00:37

Would there be a seperate rank list for each event? So someone might be the number one in the world in shred 30, but the the number 3 for routines?

Or can we base shred 30 on the person's scores somehow - It should reflect current form - not just best score they've ever achieved.

Same thing with routine rankings. The point system you've outlined seems to mean that older players will be ranked much higher than new players. It would be better to have a system which averages results per competition in some way - so that you don't get ranked higher just for competing in more events - but also you don't go down positions for competing in small competions and winning.

max · Post by **max** » 23 Jul 2004 01:12

on a slightly on-topic note:
I think that due to the high number of particpants in Worlds this year, seeding will be used. Placement in last-years Worlds will be used as a base for seeding freestylers. I'm not at all sure about this. Maybe Ellis could fill us in if he has time. In all honesty, seeding for big freestyle events like this is going to be needed. What will happen when you have 100 players wanting to play in open???
That's so many routines it's a NIGHTMARE to organise.

kaos · Post by **kaos** » 23 Jul 2004 01:16

Alot of sports have a ranking system. I don't remember exactly how it works, but usually only the best X events over a 12 month period counts towards your ranking. This prevents people for competing in a helluva lot of events just to get their ranking up, and it also filters out players that are not actively competing anymore. Choosing the value for X might be difficult, since not all the players have the same oppurtunities to travel to events...

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 23 Jul 2004 19:10

Jeremy wrote:Would there be a seperate rank list for each event? So someone might be the number one in the world in shred 30, but the the number 3 for routines?Or can we base shred 30 on the person's scores somehow - It should reflect current form - not just best score they've ever achieved.

yeah i think i said have different rankings for both shred 30 and routines in the first big entry, but i may not have, i meant to say that if i didn't. as to the shred 30 being based on the best scores they ever had, i'm not sure what you mean by this.

Same thing with routine rankings. The point system you've outlined seems to mean that older players will be ranked much higher than new players.

i don't think it does at all. i think it's totally unbaised, but maybe my link between my brain and my fingers left some thing out or miswrote some thing....

It would be better to have a system which averages results per competition in some way - so that you don't get ranked higher just for competing in more events - but also you don't go down positions for competing in small competions and winning.

well my thought was that it would only work for sanctioned events, have 12 in a year. only the selected events would count towards the championship points. if it were to be done for every single competition it would be pretty hard to keep track of every one. if i missed your point here completely, set me straight.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 23 Jul 2004 22:32

I didn't read the whole thing, but I read a few lines and saw that you wanted to award points based on how many times a person has won a championship? That doesn't work because it's based on how many comps a person has been IN... Vasek hasn't even won as many as other people. But I didn't finish reading... will keep reading and maybe update later if I have anything to add.

LameR · Post by **LameR** » 23 Jul 2004 22:54

Wow, that was really, really, REALLY in depth. MAJOR props to Andrew for all the effort. I like the idea, but like most things, there would be loopholes in places, you've thought of a few but undoubtedly more would arise. I don't know if I like the idea or not. I like the idea of having a ranking system, but at the same time I'm kinda hesitant about it due to how laid back footbag is usually. Overall I think it's a good idea, but if this was actually taken up and used people would have to realize that there would be flaws for the first few years. Maybe instead of actually using it (if it even gets used), make a system of rules for it, then compare what the rankings would be to how they end up in worlds or something like that. If there's major differences, maybe you can find a few of the loopholes.

verena · Post by **verena** » 24 Jul 2004 00:48

yeah...just joined this community and read this post about ranking!
your thoughts are cool, but you weren't the first one.

at euro's this year, there was already a ranking! just have a talk with schubi who was the head judge at euro's, wrote his own judging sofware, etc.!

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 24 Jul 2004 01:33

Yeah we have our own ranking system in Finland also. You just have to host big enough tournament to get a ranking tournament title, and it starts to draw people. At the end of the year, the top people will be choosed to Team Finland. There's also different factors how people are choosed to Team Finland, but ranking is one of the major ones.

Freestyle needs ranking world wide. We need pages where all the rankings are. We need links where we can see who did get most points in that tournament and in that. We need commitees who say which is a ranking tournament and which isn't. We need alot things :)

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 24 Jul 2004 07:53

bigdirtyfoot wrote:I didn't read the whole thing,

okay

bigdirtyfoot wrote:but I read a few lines and saw that you wanted to award points based on how many times a person has won a championship?

no, i didn't. i guess i must have written it in a confusing manner.

Brett · Post by **Brett** » 24 Jul 2004 07:59

This system reminds me of something from another sport, but I just can't place it......

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 24 Jul 2004 08:01

yeah man, cff straight up!

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 10 Aug 2004 06:09

I think that the first step would be a big ranking in Europe, and another big ranking in US. If the sport will be bigger, and sponsorship will be in then we may thinking about worldwide ranking. and at start - we don't need 12 tournaments which are considered by rank. 4-5-6 is good number for start.
And which events are considered should be based on these events from previous years.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 10 Aug 2004 07:42

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 15 Aug 2004 21:49

Ok, I've come up with a ranking system and ranked about the top 100 in the world. It is not accurate for two reasons. 1 - there are a lot more events in Europe than there are in the rest of the world. 2 - many of the results I could find only listed the finalists or even just the top 3.

Also note that this is based purely on results and has nothing to do with actual ability. - Basically I just compared results and in times when there was a conflict rated the importance of the event based on the level of competition. - It's hard to go into the details but here is my list - it was all very logical so if you have any questions about particular results I can easily explain them

2004 Current Rankings
Place Player Country
1 Klouda Czech
2 Weber Czech
3 Bevier USA
4 Irish USA
5 Je Linnanen Finland
6 Penske USA
7 Merzouk Canada
8 Smith USA
9 Zelinka Czech
10 K Daouk Swiss
11 Hufschmid Swiss
12 Fry Canada
13 Moir Canada
18 Windsor USA
18 Zenger Finland
18 Mihara Japan
18 Nelson USA
18 Lepisto Finland
23 Keith USA
23 Jay-Bonn USA
23 Genz USA
23 Murphy NZ
23 Somolinos Japan
28 Ednie Australia
28 Antikainen Finland
28 Vainikka Finland
28 Tuan Vu USA
28 Schneider USA
29 Cronjaeger Germany
30 Mat. Schmidt Germany
31 Remy France
32 Struz Czech
33 Zulli Swiss
34 Wagner Germany
35 Michelewski Germany
36 Cerveny Czech
37 Wysocki Poland
38 Godlewski Poland
39 Budzik Poland
40 Siegert Germany
41 S. Daouk Swiss
42 Mitrofanov Finland
43 Brocka Slovakia
44 Dastrandj Austria
55 Paakkonen Finland
55 Marjo Finland
55 Boucoiran France
55 Abraham USA
55 Salmenhaara Finland
55 Kerkhoff Germany
55 Man. Schmidt Germany
55 Kaela Poland
55 Ebner Austria
55 Neuhard Denmark
55 T. Ostronski Poland
56 Bauer Germany
57 Kabache France
63 Ellen USA
63 Laroche Canada
63 Tu Vu USA
63 Girard-Lariviere Canada
63 Campbell Canada
63 Davidson USA
64 Grant Canada
67 Kolodenchuk Canada
67 Benham USA
67 Halley USA
68 Ledain France
69 Tellenbach Germany
70 Touzelet France
71 Schafer Germany
77 Fritsch Germany
77 Korf Germany
77 Tyrpekl Czech
77 Walkispuhl Swiss
77 Eskenazy Swiss
77 Danek Czech
83 Dobeli Swiss
83 Solinger Swiss
83 Konicek Czech
83 Peier Germany
83 Varvaro USA
83 Ostronski Poland
87 Ju. Linnanen Finland
87 Moreau USA
87 Ianek Canada
87 Linscott USA
93 McCullogh Canada
93 Coleman USA
93 Busch Germany
93 Varga Slovakia
93 Gosi Hungary
93 Skrabal Czech

Rankings are from these events:
Worlds 2004
Euros 2004
Footjam 2004
Todexon 2004
German Open 2004
French Open 2004
RNH 2004
MECCA 2004
Swiat Zoski 2004

mouseman · Post by **mouseman** » 15 Aug 2004 22:30

42 Mitrofanov Finland

Ilja Mitrofanov is from Estonia.

In worlds I talked a little bit about rankings in freestyle with Steve Goldberd. He said that freestyle rankings are what he has tried to accomplish in past years. He even said that one of the IFPA's main goals was to make a ranking system. There just are some major problems what not one man can deal with. If I remember correctly, they did a ranking system to Euros which worked. So based on this conversation I would recommend everyone who has time to help to accomplish this goal to contact Steve so we could make this happen together. Just to show that he isn't alone with his ideas and he could actually get some help doing all this.

So if I understood correctly, we already have a working ranking system but we need more common understanding towards eachother and alot help from all tournament organizers/just everyone.

DoctorJay · Post by **DoctorJay** » 17 Aug 2004 08:39

nice list jeremy

I think a rank system would not be that complicated if ALL places of a tournament would be listed.

it is really disappointing to compete and after the tournamemt nobody knows how you did.

moreover i am a real score reader - so i am interested in all results ( better the full judging sheets) - not only read

1. vasek
2. honza
3. ales

such a final score told me nothing about the competition..... hope this will change soon

56

( who is scott davidson???)

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 17 Aug 2004 11:19

Jeremy wrote: 55 Kaela Poland
55 T. Ostronski Poland
83 Ostronski Poland

Kaleta
T. Ostrowski
M. Ostrowski

37 Wysocki Poland
38 Godlewski Poland
39 Budzik Poland

It should be
37 Budzik
38 Godlewski
39 Wysocki
I think.
In results from Swiat Zoski higher places were on bottom. This Way:
3. Kamil Wysocki
2. Hubert Godlewski
1. Damian Budzik